The Short Shift Game and Shorter 1970's/80's Careers

[Canadiens1958]

The "Short Shift Game", or Mike Keenan's legacy to hockey.

The "Short Shift Game" was introduced to the NHL by Mike Keenan when he became the coach of the Flyers at the start of the 1984-85 season. Playing an up tempo game with a very young roster, vast majority of players 26 years old or younger, Keenan drove the team to the SC finals by playing 30-45 second shifts.

Very quickly the "Short Shift Game" became the norm. Previously shifts were longer, stretching upwards of two minutes. Short shifts were used at times to get match-up advantages, mask injuries or conditioning issues. Conversely some stars would enjoy a double shift while their line mates would change.

Much has been made of the phenomena that NHL players who made their debut in the 1970's/early 1980's had relatively short careers. Mainly an observation since no explanation was advanced.

Now I am proposing a discussion that hopefully may link the "Short Shift Game" with the shorter career of the players that made their NHL debut in the 1970's and early 1980's.

Stamina/Speed
Mike Keenan built his 1984-85 Flyers around youth.Speed was the main consideration over stamina.Positioning and stamina wre not factors since during a shift that lasted 30-40 seconds on ice circumstances rarely repeated during a shift or from shift to shift. If a player was spent after max effort during the 30-40 second shift there was no need to worry that the return rush was going to be damaging or that he could not participate on the offensive rush. Changing on the fly saved or even gained the lost time and distance.

Puck Movement/Puck Carrying
Previously there was a much stronger emphasis on puck carrying as opposed to puck movement. In certain instances this went against one of the basics of hockey that a passed puck gets up ice faster than a carried puck but the rush was a carry over from the old days when forward passing was not allowed or very limited. Teams like the Sabres masked the puck handling weaknesses of their d-men by having Gilbert Perreault rush the puck from their own end or outlet the puck in a fashion similar to a d-man.

Strategy/Inside Game
The "Short Shift Game" changed hockey strategy.Speed replaced stamina - the quick attack replaced sustained pressure, control and counter-attack was replaced by neutralize, clear the zone, chase and create offense by forcing mistakes. The inside game changed.The inside game of wingers going up and down the ice jockeying for position and an inside advantage later in the shift virtually disappeared.

These changes brought about by the "Short Shift Game" had an impact on the older players who had built careers based on stamina, pace and knowledge of the league. Very few were able to adapt. One of the first casualties was Guy Lafleur.Darryl Sittler was traded by the Flyers in early October of 1984 for a young Murray Craven who could play the short shift game and Joe Paterson. Lanny McDonald and Marcel Dionne saw their numbers drop as the western teams moved to the "Short Shift Game", Dionne's effectiveness dropped significantly when traded to the Rangers in the east where the pace was faster.

Just an out line and exchange of ideas about the effects of the "Short Shift" game and the impact it had on the careers of players from the 1970's.

Thoughts and comments appreciated.

Click to read more...

 

[overpass]

Thanks for the post, this is interesting stuff. I don't have much to add, just a couple of questions come to mind.

Fred Shero was an earlier pioneer in short shifts, right? Was it coincidence that both Shero and Keenan coached for the same team?

The specific observations on players who were affected are also interesting. Any Oilers fans or hockey fans who can comment on how and when the dynasty Oilers adapted in this area? Normally the teams that drive change are winning Cups but it was the Oilers, not the Flyers who were winning. Maybe the Oilers were just on another level and the Flyers were a team whose blueprint it was easier to copy.

Many NHL stars played for Keenan in 1987 at the Canada Cup. Did they have to adjust to Keenan's short shifts or had it spread across the league by then?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Good Points

Thanks for the post, this is interesting stuff. I don't have much to add, just a couple of questions come to mind.

Fred Shero was an earlier pioneer in short shifts, right? Was it coincidence that both Shero and Keenan coached for the same team?

The specific observations on players who were affected is also interesting. Any Oilers fans or hockey fans who can comment on how the dynasty Oilers adapted in this area?

Many NHL stars played for Keenan in 1987 at the Canada Cup. Did they have to adjust to Keenan's short shifts or had it spread across the league by then?

Pioneering short shifts. Hard to give a specific answer or pinpoint a coach, team or era. Back into the fifties short shifts were used to combat fatigue when teams played 3 games in 4 nights(Th/Sat/Sun) was very common for the Canadiens or 4 in 5 nights (Wed/Thur/Sat/Sun). Shero used it at times to get an edge in match-ups, situations, as a solution to the high penalty totals that brought about 4 nn 4 situations or necessitated line adjustments. However it was not an integral part of his strategy as it was with Keenan. That both coached for the Flyers probably helped when it came down to Keenan selling the approach during the job interview. The management/ownership could relate to the previous success with Shero.

The Oilers and other young teams adapted very quickly - 1985-86 Canadiens won the cup with a very young roster, believe something like 12 rookies or first year players. The older teams and players fell by the wayside rather quickly.

1987 Team Canada was probably the youngest Team Canada ever to that point. So they were familiar with the short shift game and had no problem adapting to the specific strategy.

 

[Stephen]

It's a pretty interesting theory as to the length of careers in the 1970s and 1980s, but I guess that theory supposes a player has a certain amount of serviceable minutes and gets used up in tiny increments. The longer the shift, the shorter the career.

I'm not much of an expert on fitness, but I always figured the length of modern careers was a result of better training off the ice and improved lifestyle choices.

As contracts became exponentially more valuable in the early to mid 90s, players have become more dedicated to extending their careers and earning potential through a more professional attitude about training and being in better shape, since millions were literally on the line.

29-30 used to be a kind of best before date for players, but in the modern era, guys are just in the middle of their careers since they've been training better and are in better physical shape as they age.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Interesting post. This theory seems as good as any up to this point.

The main question reagrding the phenomenon you discuss still remains though: Why did payers entering the league in the fall of 1979 and onwards have so many guys play so much longer than those who entered in the fall of 1977 or 1978? The change in draft age is not enough to account for such a stunning descrepency.

Was there any sort of fundamental change at the junior level in the late 70's that could be a factor? To tie in with the topic, at what point did junior coaches embrace the short shift game?

 

[Canadiens1958]

WHA and Junior

Interesting post. This theory seems as good as any up to this point.

The main question reagrding the phenomenon you discuss still remains though: Why did payers entering the league in the fall of 1979 and onwards have so many guys play so much longer than those who entered in the fall of 1977 or 1978? The change in draft age is not enough to account for such a stunning descrepency.

Was there any sort of fundamental change at the junior level in the late 70's that could be a factor? To tie in with the topic, at what point did junior coaches embrace the short shift game?

The WHA option scrambled the entry into the NHL. If the junior players playing in the WHA at that time were viewed as playing NHL time, things should balance.

Mike Keenan coached in the OHL - Peterborough in 1979-80. Also junior teams played shorter shifts than the NHL for various reasons. The physical capacities of 16-20 year olds dictated shorter shifts with age/physical appropriate match-ups as opposed to the NHL strategy based match-ups.

Also different coaches and organizations had different approaches to developing players.

 

[nik jr]

i think i have read posts by MS about this same subject.

i think he attributed shorter careers of that era to other changes besides increased speed.

seems likely to me

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Exceptions

Very interesting points. You did a good job of listing players that were affected by this (LaFleur, Dionne, etc.)...I'm sure there were some exceptions too. Who were they and why do you think they were able to adapt while most of their peers were not?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Skaters

Very interesting points. You did a good job of listing players that were affected by this (LaFleur, Dionne, etc.)...I'm sure there were some exceptions too. Who were they and why do you think they were able to adapt while most of their peers were not?

The strong skaters, intelligent players. Bob Gainey, Larry Robinson, Mark Howe - until injuries took their toll, come to mind immediately as players who adapted.

In terms of adapting, coaching and management played a major role.This cut both ways. The Nordiques and Michel Bergeron had a hard time adapting and you saw the organization plummet. Bergeron, never the brightest tactician, could not figure out the pace and the line changes. Esposito saw that it was futile and canned him just before the playoffs in New York.

Conversely certain teams saw that players on other teams were floundering under the new game and made good trades. Boston getting a young Cam Neely being a prime example. They saw that they had the right team mates and circumstances for his skill set and made a very beneficial trade.

 

[ForsbergForever]

This is a very interesting proposal and illustrates the generational break that occured by the mid 1980s. I would like to know though, how much of an impact a shift in league demographics aided the adaptation of the shorter shifts/puck movement strategy. Is there anywhere I breakdown of the median age of players is broken down for each season? Dionne and Lafleur are mentioned as players who could not adapt but it seems to me that they would be two of the best candidate to adapt to the new philosophy with their hockey sense and skills, but by the mid 80s they were both in their mid 30s and had had several injuries. As players in their age group retired and tounger players took their place, the game sped up and new tactics like Keenan's system could be implimented more easily and coupled with what another poster mentioned about higher valued contracts and the corresponding increase in fitness and prolonging careers, the game as we know it today began to take shape.

 

[Stray Wasp]

This is a very interesting proposal and illustrates the generational break that occured by the mid 1980s. I would like to know though, how much of an impact a shift in league demographics aided the adaptation of the shorter shifts/puck movement strategy. Is there anywhere I breakdown of the median age of players is broken down for each season?

Not exactly what you were looking for, but I took a brief look at NHL players by age, using the hockey-reference site. Hardly the most scientific or precise of surveys but here's some results:

79-80: 585 skaters
age 19 or under: 17 (2.9%)
age 20-24: 265 (45.3%)
age 25-29: 206 (35.2%)
age 30-34: 82 (14.0%)
age 35+: 15 (2.6%)

84-85: 606 skaters
19 or under: 38 (6.3%)
20-24: 292 (48.2%)
25-29: 208 (34.3%)
30-34: 63 (10.4%)
35+: 5 (0.8%)

89-90: 655 skaters
19 or under: 14 (2.1%)
20-24: 293 (44.7%)
25-29: 256 (39.1%)
30-34: 84 (12.8%)
35+: 8 (1.2%)

By way of comparison in 66-67, 30.5% of skaters were aged over thirty. In 09-10, that figure was 25.6%. In both of those seasons the proportion of over 35s was exactly the same (7.6%).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interesting Convergence

Not exactly what you were looking for, but I took a brief look at NHL players by age, using the hockey-reference site. Hardly the most scientific or precise of surveys but here's some results:

79-80: 585 skaters
age 19 or under: 17 (2.9%)
age 20-24: 265 (45.3%)
age 25-29: 206 (35.2%)
age 30-34: 82 (14.0%)
age 35+: 15 (2.6%)

84-85: 606 skaters
19 or under: 38 (6.3%)
20-24: 292 (48.2%)
25-29: 208 (34.3%)
30-34: 63 (10.4%)
35+: 5 (0.8%)

89-90: 655 skaters
19 or under: 14 (2.1%)
20-24: 293 (44.7%)
25-29: 256 (39.1%)
30-34: 84 (12.8%)
35+: 8 (1.2%)

By way of comparison in 66-67, 30.5% of skaters were aged over thirty. In 09-10, that figure was 25.6%. In both of those seasons the proportion of over 35s was exactly the same (7.6%).

Thank you for taking the time to research and post the results.

There is a very interesting convergence at the 1984-65 season of three factors that facilitated the "Short Shift Game". Note that 54.5% of the players in the 1984-85 were under the age of 25.

The emergence of Midget AAA leagues or equivalent for the super talented 15-17 year olds had the following impact. The young elite hockey players stayed closer to home, getting more playing and practice time, developing leadership skills, maintaining NCAA scholarship eligibility while playing an up tempo game with shorter shifts. Previously these youngsters had lesser choices. Play on a typical midget teams with lesser team mates and less challenging opposition or go to major junior where they would get less ice time unless they were mega elite like Bobby Orr, playing with older juniors before they reached the required physical maturity.

The post WHA era saw the return of stability to the major junior teams and leagues in Canada. Players were less likely to leave early before they were ready for the pros. This improved the caliber of the major junior leagues while producing players in the 18-20 year age bracket that were more ready for the NHL than previously. Combined with the emergence and growth of the feeder MIDGET AAA or equivalent leagues, this allowed the CHL leagues to expand rapidly the number of teams.Between 1979/1985 the increases were: QMJHL 10/12, OHL 12/15, WHL 12/14, from 34 to 41 teams.

The Bobby Orr Effect in the USA saw the emergence of NHL ready American born players from the NCAA and the major junior ranks in Canada. The NCAA at that time played a stable , up tempo brand of hockey.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This is great stuff, nice work Canadiens1958.

 

[ForsbergForever]

Not exactly what you were looking for, but I took a brief look at NHL players by age, using the hockey-reference site. Hardly the most scientific or precise of surveys but here's some results:

79-80: 585 skaters
age 30-34: 82 (14.0%)
age 35+: 15 (2.6%)
30+: 16.6%

84-85: 606 skaters
30-34: 63 (10.4%)
35+: 5 (0.8%)
30+: 11.2%

89-90: 655 skaters
30-34: 84 (12.8%)
35+: 8 (1.2%)
30+: 14%

By way of comparison in 66-67, 30.5% of skaters were aged over thirty. In 09-10, that figure was 25.6%. In both of those seasons the proportion of over 35s was exactly the same (7.6%).

So judging by these stats it seems the mid 80s were an unprecedented time of youth in the NHL which obviously must have contributed to the high-scoring, fast paced game that dominated during this time.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not Sure..............

So judging by these stats it seems the mid 80s were an unprecedented time of youth in the NHL which obviously must have contributed to the high-scoring, fast paced game that dominated during this time.

Not sure where you are going with the bold part above. Increased speed with decreased other skills. do not produce high scoring.

The question is how was the scoring eventually distributed amongst the players in the league or on a team.

 

[ForsbergForever]

Not sure where you are going with the bold part above. Increased speed with decreased other skills. do not produce high scoring.

The question is how was the scoring eventually distributed amongst the players in the league or on a team.

Now i'm the one who is confused. The youth movement in the NHL coupled with a simultaneous shift in how the game was played, i.e. shorter shifts, greater focus on fitness created conditions in the 80s that led to a much higher scoring era. As for decreased other skills, goaltending was at a low point during the decade...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Scoring

Now i'm the one who is confused. The youth movement in the NHL coupled with a simultaneous shift in how the game was played, i.e. shorter shifts, greater focus on fitness created conditions in the 80s that led to a much higher scoring era. As for decreased other skills, goaltending was at a low point during the decade...

Scoring in general went up. Starting with the 1979/80 season TG/G were: 7.03/7.69/8.03(81-82)/7.73/7.89/7.77(84-85)/7.93/7.34/7.43/7.48//7.87 thru the 1989-90 season. Peak was 1981-82, before the "Short Shift Game" became the norm. The eighties did end with more scoring than at the start. Point is that the scoring was not balanced but gravitated to the top offensive elite players and the next tier. This trend continued thru the various phases until today. where on a TG/G basis the scoring is the equivalent of the late 1950's to expansion era.

Granted length of schedule(70 vs 82 games) and the OT points inflate the point totals, but there is still a much greater concentration of points at the top because the other skills have deteriorated instead of keeping pace.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Point Distribution

In another thread "tarheelhockey" made an excellent comparison between the 1989 Canucks and this season's version in terms of point distribution amongst team mates. See post #54.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=32742815&posted=1#post32742815

If we extend this comparison to the O6 era and look at the 1959-60 Canadiens(255 goals scored) vs the 2010-11 Canucks(262 goals scored), both teams lead the league for fewest goals allowed:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1960.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/VAN/2011.html

The support players on the 1959-60 Canadiens,carried a much heavier offensive load, especially the forwards - pre rushing d-men era, while being equally proficient defensively. Fourth center on the Canadiens - Phil Goyette scored 20 goals and would eventually play a top 2 center role on other teams. Simply this will never happen with the likes of Maxim Lapierre or the likes of Tanner Glass vs a all purpose forward like Don Marshall who would go on to earn a 2nd AS team honour with the Rangers.

Conversely the team offensive leaders, Jean Beliveau, Henri Richard, Bernie Geoffrion, Dickie Moore did not dominate the team scoring like the Sedins.

Short shift speed alone is not a sufficient measure of hockey talent.

 

[BraveCanadian]

In another thread "tarheelhockey" made an excellent comparison between the 1989 Canucks and this season's version in terms of point distribution amongst team mates. See post #54.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=32742815&posted=1#post32742815

If we extend this comparison to the O6 era and look at the 1959-60 Canadiens(255 goals scored) vs the 2010-11 Canucks(262 goals scored), both teams lead the league for fewest goals allowed:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1960.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/VAN/2011.html

The support players on the 1959-60 Canadiens,carried a much heavier offensive load, especially the forwards - pre rushing d-men era, while being equally proficient defensively. Fourth center on the Canadiens - Phil Goyette scored 20 goals and would eventually play a top 2 center role on other teams. Simply this will never happen with the likes of Maxim Lapierre or the likes of Tanner Glass vs a all purpose forward like Don Marshall who would go on to earn a 2nd AS team honour with the Rangers.

Conversely the team offensive leaders, Jean Beliveau, Henri Richard, Bernie Geoffrion, Dickie Moore did not dominate the team scoring like the Sedins.

Short shift speed alone is not a sufficient measure of hockey talent.

I think this shows up a lot now in "team construction" as well.

How often do you hear about a player that he is "top 6 or bust"?

Specialization has really taken over from general talent level.

 

[mja]

Um, there may be something to this, but to me, there's another big factor.

The advances in injury treatment, particularly arthroscopic surgery, can not be overstated.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Specialization

I think this shows up a lot now in "team construction" as well.

How often do you hear about a player that he is "top 6 or bust"?

Specialization has really taken over from general talent level.

Specialization entered the NHL with the 70 game schedule. John McCormack was amongst the first penalty killing/defensive specialists but he could play hockey.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/m/mccorjo01.html

The numbers were generated with limited minutes, killing penalties against the other teams top players when the full two minutes had to be killed.

Reggie Fleming, a swing player, d-man/forward with enforcer skills could contribute offensively, certainly more than the typical enforcer today.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/f/flemire01.html

Specialization is not to be confused with limitations.

The other side of the top 6 position is coaching. Very few coaches today cannot coach hockey. They can coach the system that they are familiar with and players who fit within the system.

Mike Keenan was very quickly exposed in this regard as where ever he went it became a question of finding players compatible to his system. On the other hand the great coaches - Toe Blake, Scotty Bowman, Al Arbour managed to get the most out of the players available.

Blake's fifties and sixties championship teams had distinctly different skill sets yet he put together championship teams.

Bowman's Blues vs the early or late seventies Canadiens vs the Pens or Red Wings all had distinct skill sets but he managed convince each group of the necessity of certain basics and won. He learned and adapted from his Buffalo days and became a better coach.

Arbour won with the Islanders then with a rebuilt team with different skills upset the 1993 Bowman Penguins.

Today you have coaches that cannot coach basic offense. So you hear the Top 6 excuse that basically covers coaching flaws.

 

[Stephen]

The support players on the 1959-60 Canadiens,carried a much heavier offensive load, especially the forwards - pre rushing d-men era, while being equally proficient defensively. Fourth center on the Canadiens - Phil Goyette scored 20 goals and would eventually play a top 2 center role on other teams. Simply this will never happen with the likes of Maxim Lapierre or the likes of Tanner Glass vs a all purpose forward like Don Marshall who would go on to earn a 2nd AS team honour with the Rangers.

Conversely the team offensive leaders, Jean Beliveau, Henri Richard, Bernie Geoffrion, Dickie Moore did not dominate the team scoring like the Sedins.

Short shift speed alone is not a sufficient measure of hockey talent.

I'm not sure how this couldn't happen. If you took away Jordan Staal from the Penguins, who occupies a third line center position, I'm sure he could upgrade his offensive output and be a pretty fantastic top line centerman.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The WHA option scrambled the entry into the NHL. If the junior players playing in the WHA at that time were viewed as playing NHL time, things should balance.

Good point. I guess offhand you could count Gretzky, Messier, and Gartner as 1978-79 rookies who lasted a very long time. Would it fully balance? I'm leaning towards no, but I'll have to check when I have the time.

I'm not sure how this couldn't happen. If you took away Jordan Staal from the Penguins, who occupies a third line center position, I'm sure he could upgrade his offensive output and be a pretty fantastic top line centerman.

Well first off, you've pulled a very unique example in that Staal plays behind arguably the two best C in the game. Pretty rare that one team boasts the two best, so he's not your typical 3rd line pivot.

And second, we just saw what happens when Staal becomes the #1 C on a team. I think he'd be a fine second line option for a coach to have, but you're not going far if he's your best man up the middle as the Penguins found out.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Others and Jordan Staal

Good point. I guess offhand you could count Gretzky, Messier, and Gartner as 1978-79 rookies who lasted a very long time. Would it fully balance? I'm leaning towards no, but I'll have to check when I have the time.



Well first off, you've pulled a very unique example in that Staal plays behind arguably the two best C in the game. Pretty rare that one team boasts the two best, so he's not your typical 3rd line pivot.

And second, we just saw what happens when Staal becomes the #1 C on a team. I think he'd be a fine second line option for a coach to have, but you're not going far if he's your best man up the middle as the Penguins found out.

Other WHA alumni from the 1977/78 and 1978/79 that had reasonably lengthy careers would be Michel Goulet, Rob Ramage, Rod Langway, Ken Linseman. Goalies perhaps Mike Liut.

If you take 1000 NHL regular season games for skaters then the 1979 draft produced more long careers without considering Gretzky than the 1974 thru 78 drafts combined.

You are correct about Jordan Staal. His defense allowed the Penguins to compete and have a season beyond what anyone would have foreseen with Crosby and Malkin injured BUT the offense did not keep pace with first or second line centers.